Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12076465›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery.

R W Ostelo, H C de Vet, G Waddell, M R Kerckhoffs, P Leffers, M W van Tulder

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Opioids compared to placebo or other treatments for chronic low-back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  3. Family therapy for depression.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007
    Pooled it
  4. Psychosocial interventions by general practitioners.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007
    Pooled it
  5. Effectiveness of conservative treatments for the lumbosacral radicular syndrome: a systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2007
    Pooled it
  6. Clinic-based training in comparison to home-based training after first-time lumbar disc surgery: a randomised controlled trial.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2009
    Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A survey of post-operative management for patients following first time lumbar discectomy.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2007
    Article
  11. The development of an evidence-based patient booklet for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy and un-instrumented decompression.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2007
    Review
  12. Early neuromuscular customized training after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective controlled study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2007
    Article
  13. Neurosurgeons' management of lumbosacral radicular syndrome evaluated against a clinical guideline.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2004
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R W OsteloDepartment of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Peter Debyeplein 1, PO Box 616, Maastricht, Netherlands. raymond.ostelo@epid.unimaas.nl
H C de Vet
G Waddell
M R Kerckhoffs
P Leffers
M W van Tulder
Maastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough several rehabilitation programs, physical fitness programs or protocols regarding instruction for patients to return to work after lumbar disc surgery have been suggested, little is known about the efficacy and effectiveness of these treatments. There are still persistent fears of causing re-injury, re-herniation, or instability.

objectivesThe objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of active treatments that are used in the rehabilitation after first-time lumbar disc surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Psyclit databases up to April 2000 and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register 2001, Issue 3. SELECTION CRITERIA: Both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials on any type of active rehabilitation program after first-time disc surgery were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers performed the inclusion of studies and two other reviewers independently performed the methodological quality assessment. A rating system that consists of four levels of scientific evidence summarizes the results. MAIN

resultsThirteen studies were included, six of which were of high quality. There is no strong evidence for the effectiveness for any treatment starting immediately post-surgery, mainly because of lack of (good quality) studies. For treatments that start four to six weeks post-surgery there is strong evidence (level 1) that intensive exercise programs are more effective on functional status and faster return to work (short-term follow-up) as compared to mild exercise programs and there is strong evidence (level 1) that on long term follow up there is no difference between intensive exercise programs and mild exercise programs with regard to overall improvement. For all other primary outcome measures for the comparison between intensive and mild exercise programs there is conflicting evidence (level 3) with regard to long-term follow-up. Furthermore, there is no strong evidence for the effectiveness of supervised training as compared to home exercises. There was also no strong evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation as compared to usual care. There is limited evidence (level 3) that treatments in working populations that aim at return to work are more effective than usual care with regard to return to work. Also, there is limited evidence (level 3) that low-tech and high-tech exercises, started more than 12 months post-surgery are more effective in improving low back functional status as compared to physical agents, joint manipulations or no treatment. Finally, there is no strong evidence for the effectiveness of any specific intervention when added to an exercise program, regardless of whether exercise programs start immediately post-surgery or later. None of the investigated treatments seem harmful with regard to re-herniation or re-operation. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere is no evidence that patients need to have their activities restricted after first time lumbar disc surgery. There is strong evidence for intensive exercise programs (at least if started about 4-6 weeks post-operative) on short term for functional status and faster return to work and there is no evidence they increase the re-operation rate. It is unclear what the exact content of post-surgery rehabilitation should be. Moreover, there are no studies that investigated whether active rehabilitation programs should start immediately post-surgery or possibly four to six weeks later.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyLumbar VertebraeHumansIntervertebral DiscPostoperative PeriodRecovery of Function

Identifiers

PMID12076465
OpenAlexW4254025254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.